With the advent of digital photography, it has actually become a lot cheaper now than it was with film. No longer do you have to pay for film, processing and then scanning.
I currently shoot with a 645D. If I was to use my RZ67 as much as I use my 645D, the associated film, processing, and scanning costs would quickly surpass the initial costs of the 645D and four used lenses (35, 75, 120, and a 200). A few months ago I went to a beach out in Big Sur. I shot more than 300 frames. If I were to do that with my RZ67, that day trip would have cost me about $4.85 PER SHOT! That means the total tally for film/processing/scanning would have been $1,455 - and that's just one day's shooting. Do that every weekend for three months and the camera has paid for itself compared to using film.

So it was a no-brainer - I could continue to use film and continually incur the associated costs or spend a lot more up front, but have more in my wallet at the end of the year. They way I see it, I'm using the camera for free now which is a very liberating feeling. I used to be so stingy with my photography, never taking a non-serious picture because of the costs and the fact that I only got 10 shots on a roll.

With the advent of digital photography, it has actually become a lot cheaper now than it was with film. No longer do you have to pay for film, processing and then scanning.
I currently shoot with a 645D. If I was to use my RZ67 as much as I use my 645D, the associated film, processing, and scanning costs would quickly surpass the initial costs of the 645D and four used lenses (35, 75, 120, and a 200). A few months ago I went to a beach out in Big Sur. I shot more than 300 frames. If I were to do that with my RZ67, that day trip would have cost me about $4.85 PER SHOT! That means the total tally for film/processing/scanning would have been $1,455 - and that's just one day's shooting. Do that every weekend for three months and the camera has paid for itself compared to using film.

So it was a no-brainer - I could continue to use film and continually incur the associated costs or spend a lot more up front, but have more in my wallet at the end of the year. They way I see it, I'm using the camera for free now which is a very liberating feeling. I used to be so stingy with my photography, never taking a non-serious picture because of the costs and the fact that I only got 10 shots on a roll.

It is amazes me how expensive photography used to be and that it was still such a popular activity. I certainly look at buying a digital body like buying an unlimited supply of film and processing.

A few months ago I went to a beach out in Big Sur. I shot more than 300 frames. If I were to do that with my RZ67, that day trip would have cost me about $4.85 PER SHOT! That means the total tally for film/processing/scanning would have been $1,455 - and that's just one day's shooting. Do that every weekend for three months and the camera has paid for itself compared to using film.

Shooting a roll of 120 film with my Pentax 6x7 costs between $2.00 to $2.50 per shot depending on the type of film. (That cost includes the film, processing, lab medium resolution scans and all taxes).
The 300 digital shots you took could have been done with no more than 30 film shots, as with film you tend to slow down and take your time instead of firing away.

Also donít forget the initial cost of the 645D, which is now worth 1/5 of what you paid for it. So you lost probably 8K in depreciation in a couple years. You can buy more than five used Pentax 6x7, 67 or 67II bodies for that cost and they will not depreciate in value.

In the end film will turn out cheaper, especially when you now have to buy the new 645D2 as your 645D is obsolete. That will be another 12K or so.

Shooting a roll of 120 film with my Pentax 6x7 costs between $2.00 to $2.50 per shot depending on the type of film. (That cost includes the film, processing, lab medium resolution scans and all taxes).
The 300 digital shots you took could have been done with no more than 30 film shots, as with film you tend to slow down and take your time instead of firing away.

Also donít forget the initial cost of the 645D, which is now worth 1/5 of what you paid for it. So you lost probably 8K in depreciation in a couple years. You can buy more than five used Pentax 6x7, 67 or 67II bodies for that cost and they will not depreciate in value.

In the end film will turn out cheaper, especially when you now have to buy the new 645D2 as your 645D is obsolete. That will be another 12K or so.

Phil.

I suppose depending on where you live the costs and certainly the taxes will be different. For me, since I only shoot chrome, the cost for a roll of 120 is $10 + $11 for processing + $11-$29 for scanning the ten frames depending on resolution. = $3 per shot (with local 9% sales tax) not to mention my time, gas and wear and tear on my car to go get the film, drop it off and then go pick it up.

I understand your point regarding depreciation, but still over time you will have more money in your pocket shooting digital than continually spending it on film, processing and scanning. My depreciation on the 645D is around $4,000 since I didn't pay anywhere near $9,999 for the body as I had purchased it from an actual store and not from an on-line retailer who's subject to MAP rules and regulations. As for used gear no longer depreciating, all one has to do to see the validity of that argument is to just look at the used prices for a 67II from the time they were in production to now.

As for what I could have bought used, well that's not exactly comparing apples to apples. A new 6x7 body is around $3,900 which might be what a used 645D will be soon going for once the 645D 2014 hits the shelves. Comparing the used price for both film & digital is fair, but still in the end digital must come out ahead because of not having the continuous expense associated with film. How long that'll take obviously depends on how much you shoot. The camera MFRs know this, which is why there's a hefty premium on digital cameras, especially in the pro markets. You want to see some real depreciation, compare the new/used price of a EOS DCS 1 which was $35,000 new and now can be purchased for about $400.

Either way, I'm just glad to be shooting with a camera that I love. And no, it's not obsolete as still has better image quality than any non-medium format DSLR and many MFD too.

All this discussion about the differences in cost of film vs. digital has me thinking.

Years ago I would travel to Portland, Oregon twice a year for the Rose Cup/Champ Car event and the IMSA Camel GT stop. I would get a 3 day paddock pass for each event, and arrive each day when the gates opened, and not leave until they kicked me out at the end of the day.

During my first such excursion I ran out of film for my 35mm SLR partway through the second day and had to leave, go find a store and restock.

I used Kodachrome then, which was cheaper to use than print film overall.

Based on my experience from the first race weekend, I would stock up and take enough 36 exposure rolls of Kodachrome to allow 15 rolls per day for the 3 days, so 45 rolls of film for each trip.

I also carried my camera with me everywhere I went, year 'round, and probably consumed another 20 rolls throughout the year.

Now I don't remember the costs for purchasing the film or the processing costs, as it was long time ago. And even though I was single, and had a good job that paid very well, I do remember thinking that I was spending a lot of money on photography.

Fast forward a bit.

When I bought my first digital camera (again, I don't recall the exact price) I recall thinking that it was a lot of money. Of course at the time I did not even consider the fact that I would no longer be spending money on film and processing.

By the time I bought my second digital camera I had been giving some thought to the film vs digital cost/benefit analysis. Sure, it was all just done in my pea head, I've never felt the need to get so serious about this to actually put it all down on paper and use a calculator mind you.

But I really feel that with all things considered, inflation, the almost instant super depreciation of a digital camera body, the tradeoff of film vs digital images, etc., there really is no significant difference in the overall cost of the enjoyment of the hobby of photography.

Depreciation can be a really hurt, so I buy used whenever possible. I searched for a long time on eBay for used 645D and nearly got scammed on one. On the other hand, all of my lenses were purchased through KEH and have, for the most part, not declined in value. In fact, I think that the new 645D will cause the used prices to rise as they did when the 645D was introduced.

Depreciation can be a really hurt, so I buy used whenever possible. I searched for a long time on eBay for used 645D and nearly got scammed on one. On the other hand, all of my lenses were purchased through KEH and have, for the most part, not declined in value. In fact, I think that the new 645D will cause the used prices to rise as they did when the 645D was introduced.

I just got back into photography and have just recently purchased my first DSLR's since shooting with my 35mm film Nikon F2 many years ago.
They are all used & range from my K200D with grip for $250 to a hardly used K-5 with 108 shutter clicks for $500....I don't expect to lose too much money to depreciation when I trade up in the future.
I always buy good used equipment from a reputable dealer and have usually done very well.
The problem is that I keep getting really good deals on stuff and end up spending more than I should...

After scanning through this thread, something that hasn't been talked about yet as an expensive hobby is model trains. Model trains cost wise has to be one of the most expensive hobby out there. Just to give an idea on prices, an N-scale Direct current (DC) engine goes for around 70-100 dollars and the Digital command control (DCC) engines are going 100 dollars and up. The rolling stock (box cars, grain cars and the like), depending on who made them, 10-30 dollars each and you can never get enough of them. That is N-scale. HO-scale can be more expensive but can also be cheaper on some items. Z-scale engines are priced around 300 - 400 dollars, and if you really want to spend some money, 1 1/2 foot scale, big enough to ride on, $13,000 for an engine and 400 to 600 dollars for the cars.

Also when you add in the cost of track, power for your layout, buildings, scenic materials, building everything and the fact that most people will never finish there layout, adds up to a lot of $$$$ going out the door.